Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle Finger Protests (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Editors disagree about source quality, and I can't decide that by fiat.  Sandstein  20:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Middle Finger Protests
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Activist organization that does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. ORGCRITE specifically requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. Virtually all coverage is in news reporting (i.e. a primary source), and most of it is mere-mentions in articles that are primarily about whatever issue was being protested (by other groups as well). Exactly one source appears to be secondary coverage in a reliable independent source, but that falls short of the requirement that there be multiple such sources. I was not able to turn up more sources in internet searches, but perhaps someone with more familiarity with Indian sources and languages will be more successful and I'm open to dissent provided that better sources can be found. signed,Rosguill talk 21:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep News reporting is exactly the secondary source coverage this kind of org needs to get over GNG. Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My evaluations of the sources:
 * Secondary, independent, reliable, but not significant.
 * Reliable source, but the article is almost entirely reliant on direct quotes from affiliates of the subject.
 * Reliable, secondary, independent, but mere mention, not significant.
 * Reliable, secondary, independent, but mere mention, not significant.
 * Mere mention of subject in coverage of murder case. No in-depth analysis.
 * Again, mere mention of the subject in reportage about a murder case. No in-depth analysis.
 * Reliable, secondary, independent, but mere mention, not significant.
 * Reliable, secondary, independent, but no in-depth coverage of the subject.
 * The one reliable, secondary, independent, in-depth citation mentioned above.
 * Not in depth, not secondary, doesn't even mention the subject.
 * Article about founder of the subject, no real analysis, barely mentions the subject
 * Mere mention of subject in article about wider protest, no in-depth analysis.
 * No mention of subject
 * Timeline of events relating to a murder case that the subject protested around. Reliable, independent, but a mere mention, not significant.
 * Report of a speech without analysis, not secondary, not really about the subject either.
 * Announcement of a speech, mere mention of subject.
 * More speech coverage, mere mention of subject
 * Coverage of event hosted by subject, no analysis or in-depth coverage of subject.
 * Summary of murder case and proceedings, brief mention of subject and minimal coverage
 * All together, there appears to be one source that meets WP:ORGCRITE's criteria (#10, also listed as #1). Note that ORGCRITE specifies that each source contributing toward notability must meet all requirements (independence, reliability, depth, secondary). Thus, we cannot combine more trivial mentions (such as #20 or #2) together to demonstrate significant coverage, as is allowed by some other notability guidelines like NBIO. signed,Rosguill talk 22:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. If every protest group got a Wikipedia page, there wouldn't be enough Wikipedia left for the rest of the world. A good amount of the article reads as promotional material for the founder - prior to my edits, it was definitely written by somebody unfamiliar with Wikipedia (coming from somebody still pretty unfamiliar with Wikipedia); a lot of spacing issues and the like. The sources are more about the matters they're protesting than the group itself, and in common a vein of AfD discussions, 'notability is not inherited.' LikeMeercats (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * News reporting is independent secondary sources. What other sources do you expect to find? The fact that the media report what they say about issues and use their quotes is evidence of notability.  Mention of the founder does not reduce notability.  It only affects the issue of whether the article should be about him or about the organisation.   Keep. Rathfelder (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would expect to find some more in-depth coverage, such as this article about the Namantar movement, this article about the Dalit panthers (unclear about its reliability, but my point here is depth), this article about the Naxalite movement, or this article about Every Town for Gun Safety. Honestly, even just two or three more articles like #1 and I'd consider ORGCRITE to be met. signed,Rosguill talk 17:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)18:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the first source onthis list (2) Times of India looks solid: "In the film ‘No One Killed Jessica’, Rani Mukherjee is seen interviewing a group of activists from Chandigarh, who were demanding justice for the deceased model. Led by a young, self-proclaimed activist, the group swelled to a few hundreds which went on to hold candlelight vigils and protests. Not a fragment of the film-maker’s imagination, the group, known as the 'Middle Finger Protests' actually exists and continues to work at the grassroots as the Human Rights Protection Group. Not to be mistaken as an NGO, it encourages individuals and  organizations to work towards the protection of human rights in India.".  This is part of a signed article or essay in the "city" - presumably local - edition that is about a Bollywood film about the lal murder that portrays these protests.  There may be notability here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Per . Nom's dismissive analysis of sources is not convincing.  's argument is especially not convincing per WP:PAPER.  And the use of WP:INHERITED is particularly off base.  That the org's POV is cited in articles on matters being protested is precisely an indicator of notability for such a group.  Finally, regardless of the "spacing issues and the like" we don't delete articles for being written by "somebody unfamiliar with Wikipedia." 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The argument I was trying to make, that you refute by citing WP:PAPER directly supports it. It's tongue in cheek by saying 'there's not enough wikipedia' WP:PAPER makes a clear distinction by what "can be done" and "what should be done" - this article shouldn't be done. The second comment is in regard to promotion, not the poor writing. Often these promotional articles are just written at a different quality - agreed circumstantial at best, but not irrelevant. For your direct comment "That the org's POV is cited in articles on matters being protested is precisely an indicator of notability" does that mean that if a random Joe on the street gives a comment to a newspaper he is now notable? That's nonsense! Newspapers can, and will, take comments from anybody and any organization then print whatever ones get the most clicks. We should seek to distinguish between truly notable groups and ones that are good at getting quips in the paper. LikeMeercats (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Nice straw man. How about this?  If a random Joe on the street is sought out for comment by a number of different mainstream sources specifically to give comment on a range of issues that said random Joe has taken an official position on, then he's not really a random Joe, so your example is completely irrelevant.  Newspapers absolutely will not take comments from anybody, and especially will not take comments repeatedly from the same source unless that source's POV is notable. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree, I just don't think being quoted in a newspaper is grounds for notability. A lot of people, organizations, and randoms are frequently quoted, it does not make them authoritative or important. It seems like this one is pretty personal to you so I'll let it be, but maintain that these do not meet requirements for notability. LikeMeercats (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment -- It seems like it's personal to me?! What are you talking about?  Please, enlighten me.  What did I say that makes you think that this "seems like it's pretty personal to me"?  What kind of weird accusation is that?  I never heard of this organization before I saw this AfD and I never expect to hear of it after the discussion is over.  Please try to refrain from making unfounded insinuations. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Frankly, I'm astonished anybody can read through that list generously posted by User:Rosguill and think that meets the requirement of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. Emphasis on Significant. LikeMeercats (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the analysis by Rosguill. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I read the first item on the Rosegill list - see my comment above - and it is SIGCOV. out of time for now, but I think close examination of topic, searches for sources is warranted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Sources include:, in section on Important Supreme Court Judgments, p. 162 of INDIA Handbook 2018 for Competitive Exams - Schemes, Yojanas, Policies, Bill & Acts, Amendments, Judgements, Summits, Organisations, Tribunals, Committees.  Film reviews, often brief mentions, like: Review: No One Killed Jessica is the film to beat in 2011.  Relevant text: "A sting operation is conducted, which brings new facts to light, and the public is stirred through a campaign initiated by activists (‘Middle Finger Protests’ among them) and the media.".  but brief mentions can be validate notability.  Profile of founder Prabhloch Singh. The Tribune (Chandigarh): Giving the dead, their dignity. A humanitarian, an activist and a former DJ, Prabhloch Singh’s latest initiative ensures that every deceased person gets respectful last rites.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am so appreciative when a run-down of sources is analyzed, as the nom has done. Unfortunately, I have to concur with E.M.Gregory that the first source indeeds meets criteria. Therefore I have to question the analysis and assume the article meets WP:GNG at the least. Ifnord (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There is sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG, even though some of it is in passages of a few sentences within articles about wider topics. Relatively brief material can be WP:SIGCOV, and there is a lot of it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.